tempo_get_account_categories

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the useful behavioral fact that the endpoint is not paginated. It does not disclose auth requirements, error behavior, or return shape, but with the read-only annotation covering safety, this is adequate though not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The primary action is stated first, and the important non-pagination note is included without extra verbosity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only list tool with fully documented parameters and a read-only annotation, the description is nearly complete. The only small gap is that it does not clarify whether an id query returns an object or a list, though the schema's 'empty list' wording hints at the latter.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents the id parameter's behavior ('empty list if it does not exist') and the 'view' parameter's compact/full semantics. The description's mention of a single category when id is given adds little beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') with a clear resource ('all Tempo account categories') and an explicit variant ('or a single category when id is given'). This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like tempo_get_accounts and tempo_get_account even without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description notes that the endpoint is not paginated, which is useful context for when this tool is appropriate. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over sibling tools or any exclusions, so usage guidance is mostly implied rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.